Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, including details on aaa (abdominal aortic aneurism), cardiac disease, treatment, symptoms, surgery. | ||||||||
|
Clinical effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting: 7-year concurrent comparison with open repair.Cao P, Verzini F, Parlani G, Romano L, De Rango P, Pagliuca V, Iacono G Unit of Vascular Surgery, Policlinico Monteluce, Azienda, Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia 06122, Italy. pcao@unipg.it OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and clinical outcome of open repair versus endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in achieving prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related death and graft-related complications. METHODS: Over 7 years from 1997 to 2003, 1119 consecutive patients underwent elective treatment of infrarenal AAAs, 585 with open repair and 534 with EVAR. Patients were regularly followed up at 1, 6, 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter, in EVAR group, and at 3 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter after open repair. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data were stored in a prospective database. RESULTS: Median follow-up was similar in the 2 groups: 33 months (interquartile range [IQR], 13-50 months) in the EVAR group vs 35 months (IQR, 15-54 months) in the open repair group. EVAR group patients were older than patients in the open repair group: 73 years vs 72 years (P = .04). There were statistical significant differences between the EVAR group and the open repair group with respect to AAA median diameter (52 mm vs 56 mm), coronary disease rate (46% vs 37%; P = .001), pulmonary disease rate (56% vs 38%; P < .0001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score rate (16% vs 6%; P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR group was 0.9% (5 of 534 patients), compared with 4.1% (24 of 585 patients; P = .001) in the open repair group, and major morbidity was 9.1% (49 of 534 patients) vs 18.6% (109 of 585 patients; P < .0001), respectively. The incidence of secondary procedures in the EVAR group was 15.7%, compared with 3% in the open repair group (P < .0001). There were no deaths related to secondary procedures in either group. Six AAAs (1.1%) ruptured after EVAR, 3 of which were fatal; in the open repair group 1 patient (0.2%) underwent successful repeat operatation to treat iliac pseudoaneurysm rupture 5 years after the original procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from aneurysm-related death at 84 months were 97.5% in the EVAR group and 95.9% in the open repair group (log rank test, P = .008). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 84 months were 67.1% in the open repair group and 66.9% in the EVAR group (P = NS). At the same interval the risk for secondary procedures was 49.4% for the EVAR group and 7.1% for the open repair group. Of the 11 variables analyzed with logistic analysis, open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-54.2; P = .002), American Society of Anesthesiologists IV score (HR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.7-18.8; P = .0001), and age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P = .04) were positive independent predictors of perioperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that at a maximum follow-up of 7 years, patients who undergo EVAR show lower perioperative and late aneurysm-related mortality compared with a younger and substantially healthier group of patients with aneurysms treated with open repair. The higher need for secondary procedures in the endovascular group did not affect superiority of the overall performance of EVAR in the early and late intervals. Published 23 November 2004 in J Vasc Surg, 40(5): 841-8.
© 2004-2008 Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Research Today. All Rights Reserved. |
| ||||||
